ArticlePloS one2023
Induced effects of electrical muscle stimulation and visual stimulation on visual sensory reweighting dynamics during standing on a balance board.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Design dimensions of electrocutaneous warning stimulation patterns in workplace safety devices.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providing instruction cues on body motions using stimulations has the potential to induce sensory reweighting dynamics. However, there are currently very few quantitative investigations on the difference in the induced effects on the sensory reweighting dynamics between stimulation methods. We therefore investigated the difference in the induced effects of electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) and visual sensory augmentation (visual SA) on sensory reweighting dynamics during standing on a balance board. Twenty healthy participants controlled their posture to maintain the board horizontally in the balance-board task, which included a pre-test without stimulation, a stimulation test, and a post-test without stimulation. The EMS group (n = 10) received EMS to the tibialis anterior or soleus muscle based on the board tilt. The visual SA group (n = 10) received visual stimuli via a front monitor based on the board tilt. We measured the height of the board marker and calculated the board sway. Before and after the balance-board task, the participants performed static standing with their eyes open and closed. We measured postural sway and calculated the visual reweighting. The visual reweighting showed a strong negative correlation with the balance board sway ratio between the pre- and stimulation tests in the EMS group and a strong positive correlation with that in the visual SA group. Moreover, for those who reduced the balance board sway in the stimulation test, the visual reweighting was significantly different between the stimulation methods, demonstrating that the induced effect on sensory reweighting dynamics is quantitatively different depending on which method is used. Our findings suggest that there is an appropriate stimulation method to change to the targeted sensory weights. Future investigations on the relationship between sensory reweighting dynamics and stimulation methods could contribute to the proposal and implementation of new training methods for learning to control the target weights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.